Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hollywood’s Obituary, the Sequel. Now Streaming.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hollywood’s Obituary, the Sequel. Now Streaming.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/b...streaming.html

    See the full article at the link above. Truncated here due to character limit.





    The permanently closed Vine Cinema in Hollywood.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times



    Hollywood’s Obituary, the Sequel. Now Streaming.


    In the 110-year history of the American film industry, never has so much upheaval arrived so quickly and on so many fronts.

    The permanently closed Vine Cinema in Hollywood.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times


    By Brooks Barnes
    • Nov. 28, 2020
    LOS ANGELES — “Hollywood’s like Egypt: full of crumbled pyramids. It’ll never come back. It’ll just keep on crumbling until finally the wind blows the last studio prop across the sands.”

    David O. Selznick, the golden era producer, made that glum proclamation in 1951. A new entertainment technology, TV, was emasculating cinema as a cultural force, and film studios had started to fossilize into bottom line-oriented businesses. As Selznick put it, Hollywood had been “grabbed by a little group of bookkeepers and turned into a junk industry.”

    Since then, Hollywood has repeatedly written its own obituary. It died when interlopers like Gulf + Western Industries began buying studios in the 1960s. And again when “Star Wars” (1977) and “Superman” (1978) turned movies into toy advertisements. The 1980s (VCRs), the 1990s (the rise of media super-conglomerates), the 2000s (endless fantasy sequels) and the 2010s (Netflix, Netflix, Netflix) each brought new rounds of existential hand-wringing.

    Underneath the tumult, however, the essence of the film industry remained intact. Hollywood continued to believe in itself. Sure, we churn out lowest common denominator junk, studio executives would concede over $40 salads at the Polo Lounge. It’s how we make our quarterly numbers. But we can still generate the occasional thunderclap, with ambitious films like “Get Out” and “1917” and “Black Panther” and “Once Upon a Time … in Hollywood” arriving on big screens and commanding the culture for months on end.

    In one breath: All is lost! Big Tech is going to eat us alive.

    In the next: Everyone still loves us. Just look at all those pinwheel-eyed fans buying tickets.

    But the moment of crisis in which Hollywood now finds itself is different. In the 110-year history of the American film industry, never has so much upheaval arrived so fast and on so many fronts, leaving many writers, directors, studio executives, agents and other movie workers disoriented and demoralized — wandering in “complete darkness,” as one longtime female producer told me. These are melodramatic people by nature, but talk to enough of them and you will get the strong sense that their fear is real this time.

    Have streaming, the coronavirus and other challenges combined to blow away — finally, unequivocally — the last remnants of Hollywood?

    “The last nine months have shaken the movie business to its bones,” said Jason Blum, the powerhouse producer whose credits range from “The Purge” series to “BlacKkKlansman.”


    ImageNetflix billboards above Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times

    The feel of a dismantled film set


    Streaming, of course, has been disrupting the entertainment business for some time. Netflix started delivering movies and television shows via the internet in 2007. By 2017, Disney was trying to supercharge its own streaming ambitions by bidding for Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox, ultimately swallowing most of the company for $71.3 billion in an effort to expand its library of content and gain control of Hulu.

    In recent months, however, the shift toward streaming has greatly accelerated. With more than half of the 5,477 theaters in the United States still closed, more than a dozen movies originally destined for big screens have been rerouted to streaming services or online rental platforms. Pixar’s latest adventure, “Soul,” will debut exclusively on Disney+ on Christmas Day. It will compete with “Wonder Woman 1984” (Warner Bros.), which will arrive in theaters and on HBO Max on Dec. 25, a crossing-the-Rubicon moment in the eyes of analysts.

    Meantime, the owner of Regal Cinemas, the No. 2 multiplex chain in North America, just took on emergency debt to avoid insolvency. Trying to keep his own company afloat, Adam Aron, the chief executive of AMC Entertainment, the No. 1 chain, quoted Winston Churchill on his most recent earnings call. (“We shall fight on the beaches!”) And the National Association of Theater Owners has found itself begging for a federal bailout. Deprived of one, the trade group warned, “movie theaters across the country are at risk of going dark for good.”

    Without appearing on big screens, are movies even movies? Wrestling with that question alone has pushed Hollywood into a full-blown identity crisis. But the film industry is simultaneously dealing with other challenges. Outrage over the killing of George Floyd by a police officer has forced the movie capital to confront its contribution to racism and inequity. Coronavirus-forced production shutdowns have idled tens of thousands of entertainment workers. The two biggest talent agencies, Creative Artists and William Morris Endeavor, have been hobbled by the shutdown, resulting in a diaspora of agents, some of whom are starting competing firms, a once-unthinkable realignment.

    There has been an abrupt changing of the guard in Hollywood’s highest ranks, contributing to the sense of a power vacuum. Nine of the top 20 most powerful people in show business, as ranked a year ago by The Hollywood Reporter, have left their jobs for one reason or another (retirement, scandal, corporate guillotine). They include the No. 1 person, Robert A. Iger, who stepped down as Disney’s chief executive in February, and Ron Meyer (No. 11), whose 25-year Universal career ended in August amid a tawdry extortion plot.


    Image
    Warner Bros., long a symbol of stability in Hollywood, has undergone significant changes under its new owner, AT&T.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times

    Retrenchments at Warner Bros. have also bruised Hollywood’s psyche. Over the years, as other film studios were lobbed between owners (Universal), downsized (Paramount) or subsumed (20th Century Fox), “Warners” remained virtually untouched, emerging as an emblem of stability and spending. In recent months, however, the studio has been streamlined by an aggressive new owner, AT&T, resulting in the departure of a startling number of executives who had been there for decades. For now, Warner Bros. has 10 movies on its 2022 theatrical release schedule, according to the database IMDbPro. Last year, it released 18.



    Image
    “On the Rocks” playing at the Vineland Drive-In in City of Industry, Calif. When a vaccine arrives, theaters may experience a bump because so many films have been pushed into next year.Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/28/b...streaming.html

    See the full article at the link above. Truncated here due to character limit.



  • #2
    This article, like all of the click-bait articles decrying the demise of the movie business, ends on a hopeful note that theaters will survive. Maybe not all of them, they say, but some. I kinda wonder where they are going to draw the line on what theaters will survive.

    Since we are the only one in our county, I hope we're one of the survivors. Like I have told people in the past, we survived World War II, the Great Depression, TV, cable TV, videocassettes, videogames, DVDs, the Great Recession and the Disco Era. So hopefully we can add the Covid era and the "streaming boom" to that list. (At least, in most of these articles there are quotes from film executives admitting that their movies are nothing without a theatrical release. Proving once again that we are the engine that pulls the movie train.)

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe I need to wear a tin foil hat saying this, but with the Paramount Consent Decrees rule officially gone, I think chances are at least 50-50 if not better that the major movie studios will take advantage of this pandemic situation to put current theater chains permanently out of business. Right now all studios have to do is stay their current course to cause chains like Regal, AMC, Cinemark and pretty any other theater operation to go under for good. "Staying the current course" means continuing to withhold movies from commercial theaters. So many major movie releases have been postponed for months or even years. Others have gone to streaming services instead. The current supply of movies going into commercial theaters is quite frankly a bunch of shit. The studios are casting out only a few token releases of marginal content -stuff they probably would have cast off in the dregs of January, April or late August in normal times.

      The movie studios have a perfect opportunity to have their cake and eat it too. In the immediate near term the major studios can try out releasing big budget movies direct to home TV sets via Premium VOD and/or paid streaming services (like Disney+ and HBO Max). If that doesn't work out the major studios will have the perfect arrangement to get back into the commercial movie theater business on their own terms. Many municipal governments would be desperate to get movie theaters running in their towns again. Commercial movie theaters are every bit as much an "anchor" property in any retail, leisure and entertainment district. City council people aren't going to give a tinker's damn if a Disney-branded movie theater is showing only movies from the Disney umbrella of studios. At least they'll have a commercial theater.

      The only thing that could disrupt this gambit is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic ending much sooner than expected. Vaccines aren't expected to be widely available to the general public before Spring of 2021. Best case scenario is the Summer movie season of 2021 might start returning things to some form of normal. Which theater chains and independents will still be left standing by then?

      Even after this pandemic is finished we will still have the other GIANT problem of movie studios shrinking release windows to ever shorter extremes. That factor alone is enough to ruin the business models of existing theaters.

      Here's what will be really funny if a major movie studio take-over of the commercial theater business actually happens: we'll see release windows on SOME movies actually INCREASE. If a company like Disney or Warner Bros owns all their own theaters as well as their own distribution in the home markets they can decide which movies stay in their theaters for several months or even more than a year before ever arriving on a home TV screen. The thing that will make this situation funny is movie-going customers having to adjust to a new reality. Many Americans have grown accustomed to new movies debuting on the theater screen and then going to the home TV screen in under 3 months. If the big studios control all 3 aspects of the business (production, distribution and exhibition) they'll draw up their own release windows however short or long they need to be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Nah, the windows will never increase. As soon as a movie (in studio owned theaters) goes below "x" millions of dollars, they will pull the trigger to send it to the home screens for $10 a pop or something like that. The idea of them stringing out a theatrical run for months or up to a year is laughable, because there are so many screens you'd never be able to make money filling theaters for that long -- unlike in the '70s when you had all these single-screens and the multiplexes were 2 to 4 screens at most, and a lot of them were in malls where the biggest auditorium was only 200 seats, so it took weeks to even be able to get IN to see a movie. Then when you did see it, you immediately wanted to see it again because it was that good. How many movies today inspire instant repeat viewing desire?

        Now if they start making really good movies again, the equation might change. But I don't see that happening.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think you're seeing the amount of flexibility big studios would have in a 100% vertically-integrated movie business model.

          I didn't say the release window on all movies would increase under a studio-run theaters scenario. Only some. The "highly anticipated" releases. Or the "good' movies. If a major studio like Disney or Warner Bros had dozens or hundreds of its own theater locations that get their content exclusively they can change the release window on a title by title basis. And they even can choose which studio-owned theater locations get to show the highly anticipated new movie first, just to milk it out even more and make people who live in a certain area feel more "special."

          We already see one clearly uneven standard in movies on physical media sold at retail. Most movies on DVD and Blu-ray have a pretty limited shelf life in stores. The discs get seriously discounted again and again until they're gone for good. Somehow Disney is able to maintain the prices on many of their titles at or near the high levels when a movie on disc is first released. With sales of music and movies on physical media cratering (and movie studios generally doing a very ho-hum job on their disc releases) it seems like the physical media platforms are in danger of disappearing. If everything goes streaming-only that would only help the vertically integrated business model for movie studios. If retail stores no longer have new movies on disc and the gate-keepers are just a few companies (Netflix, Amazon, etc) then that would make it so much easier for a movie studio to embargo a bunch of titles and then roll them back out to movie theaters or streaming services on a sporadic basis.

          Normally the Wall Street mentality for cashing in on a movie release is making all of the money that movie can possibly make in as short an amount of time as possible. For decades Disney has been very successful bucking that trend. And it looks like Warner Bros has started copying their movies at least to some degree. If huge studios like that are vertically integrated they can set the pace of release for their own content, title by title.

          Rivals like Netflix and Amazon could disrupt that approach to some degree, but they can really only do so by making really good movies and getting them from theater screens to TV screens faster.

          Comment


          • #6
            I do think at some point there is going to be some sort of backlash against every content producer (networks, studios, Apple, Netflix) having their own streaming service. A way better model (and cheaper) would be for there to be one huge media service that has everything, and then each company would get paid for their content as it was consumed. You know, like record stores used to do.

            The one thing that is mysterious to me is, they keep saying 'once the window is shortened, that's it... there's no going back." I say -- WHY? What better promotional tool would there be for movie theaters than for the studio to say "See this in theaters, because it won't be coming to home video until six months down the road!" If they were to flog that message, attendance would rise, if the product was any good.

            There are a few factors working against this scenario, though....
            - The product isn't usually that good
            - They are too money-hungry to do such a program when the fast cash grab is so much easier
            - Their real end goal is to only have to promote each title one time

            So I guess I answered my own question.

            Comment


            • #7
              I do think at some point there is going to be some sort of backlash against every content producer (networks, studios, Apple, Netflix) having their own streaming service. A way better model (and cheaper) would be for there to be one huge media service that has everything, and then each company would get paid for their content as it was consumed. You know, like record stores used to do.
              I agree that a bunch of subscription services each with exclusive or near exclusive content is not the way to go. This is heading down the cable TV road where people subscribe to 10 different channels to see what they want (and get a lot of what they don't want).

              The simple thing would be for each content producer (or someone they pay to do this) host the content on a pay per view basis with a unique URL. They could heavily advertise the URL as something like "Terminator47.movie" and people would go right to it and pay to watch it.

              I wonder what an appropriate pay per view cost would be. What does Netflix pay for a license, and how many views are there? And Amazon seems to do a mix of subscription and pay per view on many titles. Would they be able to recover the production cost? Especially if it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars? We've recently streamed some great movies that have production costs of about $500k ("Three Evenings" and "Whisky").

              Harold

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mike Blakesley
                I do think at some point there is going to be some sort of backlash against every content producer (networks, studios, Apple, Netflix) having their own streaming service. A way better model (and cheaper) would be for there to be one huge media service that has everything, and then each company would get paid for their content as it was consumed. You know, like record stores used to do.
                Traditional cable TV used to be a one stop shop for viewing movies and TV shows in the home. We all know what happened there. Not only did traditional cable and satellite TV become way too expensive, the cable/satellite TV providers subjected their customers to various channel outages on a frequent basis. Just look at Dish Network for example: HBO and a few other channels have been permanently removed from their service. In my viewing market they haven't carried the Wichita Falls Fox TV station for about a year. Dish is fixing to remove the NBC affiliate in Wichita Falls. They don't pass along any discounts for removing channels however. Their "basic" DVR package, with no premium channels is just over $100 per month, missing channels and all.

                Streaming-based cable TV services, such as Hulu Live or YouTube TV, seemed like a decent cost-cutting alternative to regular cable/satellite providers. But prices have increased repeatedly, making those streaming-based services far less of a bargain.

                I agree conditions are brewing for some kind of backlash. And that's even without factoring in the economic fallout from this pandemic. There are too many streaming services, not to mention too many devices that include their revolving monthly fees. You can't buy a new gaming console without getting on some monthly plan. Most new vehicles include Sirius-XM and other built-in navigation/security services that effectively equal having another fucking cable TV bill. Let's not forget how much it costs to haul around a smart phone. There isn't enough hours of available leisure time in a day to justify spending literally hundreds of dollars per month on that crap.

                Eventually a reckoning will come for all of this bloat of digital services. Consumers may discover it can be liberating to turn off (and stop paying for) all of those services. More people are getting serious about cutting the cord. Some install high quality outdoor TV antennas to watch local broadcast channels, sometimes from multiple TV markets. Then they choose one or two streaming services to keep.

                Originally posted by Mike Blakesley
                The one thing that is mysterious to me is, they keep saying 'once the window is shortened, that's it... there's no going back." I say -- WHY? What better promotional tool would there be for movie theaters than for the studio to say "See this in theaters, because it won't be coming to home video until six months down the road!" If they were to flog that message, attendance would rise, if the product was any good.
                I think it would be easier for major movie studios to extend the theatrical window for certain movie releases if the studios owned their own theaters. But the movie studios, or rather their global media parent company owners are still trapped in bean-counting mode for the most part. I've said it before. Media companies want a movie title to go from production to the theater screen and to the TV screen in as rapid a process as possible to minimize the amount of interest payments they make on funding the production. Even if a hit movie grosses over $1 billion globally the bean counters are still ate-up with that time line to minimize finance charges.

                Disney is an outlier on that. They do some things differently. In a scenario of major studios operating their own theaters they'll be able to work time lines on their own terms. It will take a big company like Disney to show other studios and media company bosses the way. They'll see Disney play with release windows and make a bunch of money doing it. They'll see Disney "embargo" all kinds of properties both new and old and then re-release them onto theatrical and home platforms any way they see fit. Every one of these big studios lusts over "franchises" and big name properties that can be sold over and over again. Unfortunately most of those outfits lack any vision or imagination.
                Last edited by Bobby Henderson; 12-02-2020, 06:50 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bobby Henderson View Post

                  Traditional cable TV used to be a one stop shop for viewing movies and TV shows in the home. We all know what happened there. Not only did traditional cable and satellite TV become way too expensive, the cable/satellite TV providers subjected their customers to various channel outages on a frequent basis. Just look at Dish Network for example: HBO and a few other channels have been permanently removed from their service. In my viewing market they haven't carried the Wichita Falls Fox TV station for about a year. Dish is fixing to remove the NBC affiliate in Wichita Falls. They don't pass along any discounts for removing channels however. Their "basic" DVR package, with no premium channels is just over $100 per month, missing channels and all.

                  Streaming-based cable TV services, such as Hulu Live or YouTube TV, seemed like a decent cost-cutting alternative to regular cable/satellite providers. But prices have increased repeatedly, making those streaming-based services far less of a bargain.

                  I agree conditions are brewing for some kind of backlash. And that's even without factoring in the economic fallout from this pandemic. There are too many streaming services, not to mention too many devices that include their revolving monthly fees. You can't buy a new gaming console without getting on some monthly plan. Most new vehicles include Sirius-XM and other built-in navigation/security services that effectively equal having another fucking cable TV bill. Let's not forget how much it costs to haul around a smart phone. There isn't enough hours of available leisure time in a day to justify spending literally hundreds of dollars per month on that crap.

                  Eventually a reckoning will come for all of this bloat of digital services. Consumers may discover it can be liberating to turn off (and stop paying for) all of those services. More people are getting serious about cutting the cord. Some install high quality outdoor TV antennas to watch local broadcast channels, sometimes from multiple TV markets. Then they choose one or two streaming services to keep.


                  The issue that traditional cable and satellite had/have is the forced delivery of channels to consumers (and associated charges) based on tiers and things. For example, ESPN would force a cable or satellite company to deliver the channel to all subscribers, whether they care about sports or not. Therefore, somebody not interested in sports at all is paying, for example, $5 per month (I actually think it is more) to have ESPN.

                  The streaming TV services have essentially become a la carte cable. When "cord cutting" (which I always thought was a dumb term since you need high speed internet service to stream) first started, the attitude was to get Netflix and have amazon prime and get plenty of content. Now, it's like you need 16 streaming subscriptions to get ample content. If you like HBO shows, you need HBO Max. If you like Disney movies or shows, you need Disney+. What if you like sports, time to subscribe to one of the live TV streaming services or multiple sports streaming services. At some point it ends up costing almost as much and you lose the single interface to all channels and integrated search.

                  Honestly, for the consumer, the best thing would be PPV for everything if it was priced at like $0.10 per episode for a show or something like that. Then you pay for what you watch and only get the unlimited streaming if you have a ton of leisure time. The streaming service business model is a lot like the business model for a gym. Get a ton of people on monthly unlimited plans and count on a large percentage using very little of the service.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think ESPN charges TV providers somewhere in the neighborhood of $12 per month, per subscriber to carry their sports channels. It's by far the most expensive basic cable network out there. Meanwhile cord-cutters can get a Disney+, Hulu and ESPN streaming bundle for something like $15 per month. It's ridiculous.

                    A number of other conditions exist that prevent consumers from putting together their own al-la-carte packages of specific channels they like. If I could choose only the basic cable channels I watch on any frequent basis I would end up with less than a dozen channels. The plug needs to be pulled on so many cable networks, but I guess there must be enough people out there willing to watch the marathon blocks of "reality TV" shows they air. Cable news networks deserve a great deal of blame for how hate-filled political tribalism has been fueled. Those "news" networks egged-it-on with their emotionally manipulative content, all designed to pump up fear and anger in viewers to keep them watching (and keep seeing those TV commercials in the breaks). Cable news networks helped ruin our nation's political discourse all just for more advertising revenue. They're the dirtiest of whores. No matter what cable network someone watches they can be sure they'll see commercial breaks that run as long as 5 minutes. Let's face it: traditional pay TV sucks ass.

                    It would be nice if there was an actual meter charging viewers only a few pennies for each program they actually watched. But there is no way TV providers and cable networks would get behind anything like that. They want the equivalent of your gym analogy: people paying full price for something they rarely use. Eventually the guy who has a gym membership and doesn't use it ends up cancelling his membership.

                    With times set to get much harder for many more millions of Americans I think many will feel forced to go over their finances with a fine-tooth comb and shut off various creature comfort services that are bleeding their bank accounts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've NEVER had a cable subscription in my name, closest I ever got was 26 years ago when I lived with an idiot roommate who wanted it and I never watched anything on it because the signal quality was so bad. There's no reason to charge ANYTHING for ESPN when they show so many commercials- those are why over the air TV has always been free.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Honestly, for the consumer, the best thing would be PPV for everything if it was priced at like $0.10 per episode for a show or something like that. Then you pay for what you watch and only get the unlimited streaming if you have a ton of leisure time.
                        Sure that'd be best for the consumer, but who gives a crap about the consumer? It's all about the providers. With an ala carte model, every single one would go out of business in about a month, unless they raised their price to about two bucks per program.

                        I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone's dropping cable because "It makes me pay for stuff I don't watch" in favor of signing up for Hulu, Netflix, AppleTV+, Disney+, HBO Max, Peacock, Amazon and all the rest.... EACH ONE OF WHICH IS MAKING YOU PAY FOR STUFF YOU DON'T WATCH.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah, but on the flipside, those who can bother to install an outdoor TV antenna and just sign up for Netflix (and perhaps Prime Video) are still cutting their pay TV costs down to a mere fraction of what it costs to pay for any kind of basic cable/satellite TV service. I strongly doubt if many people will subscribe to every possible streaming service, just like what has gone on with regular cable TV. Very few customers would sign up for every premium channel service. I mean who wants a cable bill going into the $200+ per month zone? It's the same thing with piling on all these damned streaming services. Let's not forget about Playstation and/or XBox and their monthly fee bullshit too. And smart phones. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, fucking ding. Goddamn. The real winner is the guy who can put up the off-air antenna and live with maybe even one streaming subscription, if even that.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X